- If you thought Apple Ads Block was going to lead to the demise of Retard Media, then think again
- Explicit Thoughts
- The King of the New Media Jungle
- Artificial Intelligence, Intelligent Design, Evolution and Comedy
- Fuzzy Language and Fuzzy Vocabulary
- Delusions of Grandeur
- Names vs. Words: Strings for Identity vs. Strings for Information
- How to Constrain the Freedom to Choose the Best of all Possible Worlds During an Era of Uninterrupted Progress
- How to Fix the World via the Legal System
- To Read or to Be Read
- WANTED: Is Written Language DEAD OR ALIVE?
- The Theory of Competition vs. Pricing in a Seller’s Market
- Language, the Network Effect and ICT — a Short Introduction, Here and Now
- The individualist manifesto vs. The anti-revolutionary social contract
- Neither Not at All Nor Completely
- When Wiki Gets Wonky, It Quickly Turns Wrong Key
- A Consistence Movement [First Essay]
- Zen and the Art of Giga Om
- People don’t listen, they just wait for their turn to talk
- The Greatest Retard Media Hoax is Publicity
- Responsibility to Life
- Wisdom of the Language — Nooblogs Essay
- Language is a Communications Technology, not some SEO Tactic
- 50 Pages of Google
- Subjectivity + Rationality
- The Quintessential Human Superpower: Universal Law
- Engagement is Beautiful
- People as Content: Virtual Content vs. “In Real Life” (IRL) Content
- Is the way people are just the way they are, rather than being “wrong”?
Tagsadvertising brand brands business communication community content domain domains economics economy employment engagement free Google idea ideas illiteracy illiterate information Internet language life literacy literate love market marketing meaning media online participation propaganda publishing retard media science search share social society technology web websites Wisdom of the Language writing
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
When ideas cross my mind, I generally have little or no inhibitions about expressing them plainly and explicitly. In contrast, I feel like many people censor themselves by suppressing or at least not explicitly stating what they think.
Most people seem to be afraid that other people might think less of them. Not me: I am entirely open to and accept whatever other people think of me. True: Many people are quite shallow thinkers, but I consider that to be their issue, not mine.
I have some friends who have launched a new podcast. I don’t want to talk about it — I feel it speaks for itself. I will say that I consider it to be quite funny here and there.
One thing I do want to do is to respond to it (and BTW: if you’re not well-versed in Frank Zappa, then now might be a good time to consider “Call Any Vegetable” 😉 ).
There are 2 things that have happened in the story so far — I mean: 2 things I wish to remark on. First, Ted and Brandon decided early on that making small changes among huge populations was something they weren’t going to consider — because they were afraid something like that wouldn’t work. The second thing they did was to mention Ray Kurzweil. Ray Kurzweil is considered by many to be an AI guru. In my opinion, his influence is rather limited… because his work is primarily about pattern recognition (and because the patterns that are supposed to be recognized are patterns that are defined by so-called “intelligent” beings). No AI I know of can recognize any pattern that has not been defined by such an intelligent being beforehand.
Evolution, however, is precisely such a process which “discovers” new patterns. It does this via trial and error — and crucially: small changes. In my opinion, Ted and Brandon may be making a huge mistake by ignoring the possibility that humans may be able to make some huge strides in very small steps. I also find it comical that two grown men would still believe that only people that seem to have immense power (like Superman) would be able to make momentous change happen.
Since I wrote about words vs. names a couple weeks ago (see “Names vs. Words: Strings for Identity vs. Strings for Information“), I have had an uneasy feeling that something is not well… and I think maybe I have figured it out now.
The problem is this: online, there is no clear demarcation of words vs. names. As I indicated in the post I linked to above, neither is this true in a strict sense offline. However, even though many dictionaries exist for each of the most common languages (and even though they differ in the vocabularies they document, how they document these vocabularies, etc.), there is nonetheless a somewhat reliable order … such that anyone can be expected to “look up” any word in any dictionary and get a more or less reasonable explanation. Part of becoming literate involves being able to use a dictionary — indeed: any dictionary (more or less). Of course there are dictionaries which are unusable (as they are not well researched), but they are exceptions, not the rule. Most people depend on the notion of some standard dictionary, and such standard dictionaries describe the standard language.
As I wrote about 10 years ago in my first “Wisdom of the Language” article, languages will always be moving targets. We have to be able to deal with such “facts of life”.
But upon reflecting on the juxtaposition of “strings for identity” (names) versus “strings for information” (words), I notice a much more severe issue: It leaves no room for dictionaries. In the back of my mind, I have reasoned that all of the registered strings in COM would make up the “commercial” dictionary, all of the strings in DE would make up the German dictionary, and so on. But each of these lists of registered strings also includes a significant number of brand names (in other words: “strings for identities”).
How will we know whether a string has been registered for a specific identity or whether it is registered for informative purposes? My gut feeling “hunch” reaction is that there may very well be attributes of the website / content that more or less clearly categorize the string as this type or that type. It might go like this: The more evidence there is of a “grass roots” type of community involvement in how the content is managed, the more the string would tend to be a word used by that community. Less evidence of this, and more evidence of a “top down” authoritarian management of the content would point towards an individual or organization identifying himself / herself / itself with the string.
I realize this seems rather wishy-washy. Maybe someday I will figure out something more clear, but until then I guess I will just have to cope with such fuzzy notions: fuzzy vocabulary and fuzzy language.